Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120 CHERRY ST., CHERRY ST. STATION - PDP - 9-05 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - REVISIONSspace #T-2, they may have a considerable wait to get to or from space #7. They may need to reduce the number of dwelling units. Response: In the previous round of review, we had requested a modification to the parking standards. We are no longer requesting this modification and have redesigned the parking configuration to satisfy the quantities required in the code for 15 two -bedroom units. We propose 28 parking spaces, only 27 are required. We have revised the parking layout to now provide for space for backing maneuvers. Number: 3 Created: 3/3/2005 [313/05] Label the street on the plans. Is parking allowed on Cherry in this block? If not, where are customers and employees going to park? Even though we don't require parking for commercial uses, we should be concerned if there is not adequate street parking. Response: Parking is not allowed on Cherry Street? We have revised our submittal to clarity that the non-residential component of the project will only be an internet service provider. This use would only have one employee for an hour or so a week to maintain the equipment. One of the parking spaces will be available to the non-residential employee. Number: 4 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Show building footprint dimensions on site plan. Response: See the revised site plan Number: 5 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Where are the 6 bike parking spaces referenced in the parking notes? Response See the revised site plan, the bike parking is now located at the southwest corner of the building. Number: 6 deleted Created: 3/3/2005 Number: 7 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Dimension property lines on site plan. Response: See the revised site piar, Number: 8 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] General note #9 discusses the building height criteria found in 3.5.1(G)(1)(a). Have they also submitted the shadow and visual analysis required by 3.5.1(G)(1)(b)? Response: We have included submittal documents for a special height review in this submittal Page I 1 [3/20/05] Field locate the 8-inch water main in Cherry and revise plans to reflect the actual location and alignment. This may affect the tie-in of the proposed water main. Response: The drawings have been revised per this comment Number: 46 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/05] Add note to core drill existing manhole for sewer service connection. Response: The drawings have been revised per this comment Number: 47 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/05] Provide copy of the railroad permit for the sewer service crossing. Railroad may need a detail of the crossing showing casing etc. Response: We have applied for the permit. The Railroad has required that we obtain liability insurance for conducting this operation. We are in the process of obtaining the insurance policy. We would be happy to provide a copy of the permit as soon as it has been issued to us. Number: 48 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/05] Run-off from driveway ramp may NOT discharge to the sanitary sewer. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 49 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/05] Provide water demand/water service sizing calculations. Response: We have coordinated with our mechanical engineer, and his conclusion is that we need a 2" water service. Department: Zoning Topic: Zoning Number: 16 [3/16/05] The property does need to be platted and bounds. Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Created: 3/16/2005 The original legal description is just that of a metes Response: Actually, the property was platted as part of the original town plat. Subsequently, two railroad tracks were constructed on the block. The property is a metes and bounds description because of the railroads having come through the block, however, it has been platted. It's our understanding, properties that have technically already been platted can't be required to plat. The development review application fees are $2000 higher if we plat, so we aren't intending to replat. We have included a diagram that looks like a plat in our utility plan sei Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning Number: 1 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Applicant should provide letter from trash hauler, wherein the trash hauler agrees that a truck can "back down the basement access ramp" as stated in General Note #8. Response: Please see the attached letter from Waste Management verifying that they can serve our dumpster in its current configuration. Number: 2 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Since there is very little room in the basement parking lot to "shuffle" cars around to get to the buried tandem spaces, I question the usefulness of having them, especially the tandem spaces that are 3 deep. I would recommend that the parking modification not be approved. For instance, If someone wants to leave or access space #7 at the same time that someone is trying to leave from Paoe 10 Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: General Number: 51 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/05] There appears to be no provision for the required amount of bicycle parking provided with this submittal. Please refer to LUC section 3.2.2 C 4 (a,b,&c) for specifics regarding the number of spaces required, as well as general guidelines to assist you in siting bicycle parking on this site. Response We now have a bike rack proposed near the front entrance of the building. Number: 52 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/05] Please provide more detail on how the applicant proposes to provide crossing priority for pedestrians at the entrance to the underground parking structure. This appears to be a potential point of conflict between peds using the sidewalk and vehicles that are exiting/entering the garage and will need some attention. Response The drawings have been revised per this comment Number: 53 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/05] In reference to Engineering Staffs comment above (#22) Please keep transportation planning abreast of any changes to the planter box design in the public ROW. Thanks. Response: We are no longer proposing infiltration boxes as part of our tree wells. The tree wells will now have standard tree grates. Number: 54 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/051 In general, I have concerns regarding the proposed parking amounts as well as the configuration of said parking with this submittal. I look forward to the applicants response(s) to comments 27, 40, and 41 from other departments. Response: We have withdrawn our parking modification and rearranged our parking configuration. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: General Number: 50 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/05] What uses will be allowed in the commercial space? Separate water/sewer services normally required for the commercial and residential uses. Response: We have revised our submittal to clarify that the non-residential component of the project will only be an internet service provider. This use would only have one employee for an hour or so a week to maintain the equipment. If we have any water or wastewater needs, it would be a small bathroom with a sink and a toilet. Topic: Utilities Number: 43 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/051 Change the water main across Cherry to an 8-inch through the fire hydrant swivel tee and fire line valve. Response: The drawings have been revised per this comment Number: 44 Created: 3/20/2005 [3/20/051 Reconfigure the fire hydrant/fire line arrangement as shown on the redlines. Response: The drawings have been revised per this commen' Number: 45 Created: 3/20/2005 Page 9 Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General Number: 62 Created: 3/23/2005 [3/23/05] Need photometric plan to evaluate lighting and landscaping. Response: We have provided a photometric plan with this submittal. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Drainage Number: 55 Created: 3/22/2005 [3122/05] Please provide a calculation and a narrative showing that the developed undetained flows from the site going to the north do not exceed historic runoff. Response A historic calculation and narrative has been provided in the drainage report. Topic: Infiltration Boxes Number: 57 Created: 3/22/2005 (3/22/05] Please specify to what depth will the gravel be carried in the infiltration boxes, cut-off wall should extend at least 3 feet below the tree grade planting level in order to make sure that infiltration will not affect road base. Please show that the underlying soil is pervious enough to percolate in order to make sure that these boxes will not cause any damage to the roadway by directing flows toward the street sub -grade. Response We are no longer proposing infiltration boxes as part of our tree wells Topic: Ramp Elevation Number: 63 Created: 3/24/2005 [3/24/05] The ramp only has a 0.2 feet rise from the flowline elevation before starting to go down to the garage level. Please make sure that the ramp has a more pronounced rise before starting to go down to the garage elevation in order to make sure that no street flows would enter the garage. A minimum 6" rise is required or more depending on depth of flow in the gutter. Response- The drawings nave oeen revised per this comment Topic: Tank Design Number: 56 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/051 It seems that with the current design the tank will be partially filled constantly, please provide a drain that is can be connected to the outlet in order to make sure that the tank is empty on a regular basis. Please provide a design that would minimize the potential for clogging of the outlet structure, since the orifice is so small. Response We have provided a 12" low flow drain pipe at the bottom of the proposed tank. Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Topic: traffic Number: 9 Created: 3/3/2005 [3/3/05] Access to the site is going to be difficult. The developer should assume that a right-in/right- out access will be allowed on Cherry Street - not full movement. Response: We met with Eric Bracke. Marc Virata and Anne Aspen at 2.30 p.m. on April 26, 2005, in the Development Review Engineering conference room at 281 North College Ave. At this meeting we discussed that we will be required to design the pork chop (to facilitate right-in/right-out movement), not build it with the project, but escrow the money to build it, in the event it becomes warranted. The submittal reflects this solution. Page 8 Response: Yes. you are right, we will need 3 phase power. We plan to connect to 3 phase power in the existing alley approximately 300' south of Cherry Street. Number: 13 Created: 3!7/2005 [3/7/05] If a fire pump is required, close coordination with Light & Power Engineering is encouraged while the building is still in the design stage. There are issues that can substantially affect the monthly power cost to test and operate a fire pump. Response: We spoke to Doug Martine about this issue, and plan to coordinate with our sprinkler system designer about this. Thank you for the heads -up. Number: 14 Created: 3/7/2005 [3/7/05] A streetlight plan has been sent to Anne Aspen via inter -office mail for forwarding to the applicant. Street tree locations may need to be modified to provide required clearance between trees and streetlights. Response. We have shown the new planned streetlight in the location shown on the "street light plan." We have provided required separations from it to our proposed trees. Canopy trees are at least 40' away, and ornamental trees are at least 15 feet away Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: fire Number: 64 Created: 3/25/2005 The Poudre Fire Authority has reviewed this submittal from various aspects of safety. The PFA CANNOT support this proposed edifice for the following reasons: 1. this triangular shaped bldg has railroad tracks on two of its facades. As such, there is no access available for aerial operations to be conducted within a safe distance margin. 2. the restricted height of this edifice allows for sprinklers and standpipes, but does not allow for the requirements of all the necessary fire engineered systems of a high-rise bldg. This presents additional burdens on firefighters. 3. there is not sufficient working space on Cherry St for the full complement of response vehicles to properly and adequately stage to conduct a safe operation. Response: We have coordinated these comments with Ron Gonzales and it is our understanding that PFA does now support the proposed PDP for the following reasons: Section 902.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code requires "that any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building be located less than 150' from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility", or else fire apparatus access roads need to be provided around the building. Since an engine parked on Cherry Street can easily drag a 150' hose around the northwest side and 134' hose around the east side of the building and meet one another, the entire first story of the building is clearly located within 150' of fire apparatus access, and as such, no access roads are required to be provided around the building. In addition, this project also complies with Poudre Fire Authority Administrative Policy 85-5 B which states: "Buildings three or more stories in height must have access to a 30' unobstructed access roadway on at least one (1) side (blank walls excluded) for aerial operations." As mentioned above, we are providing access to the entire south facing side of our building, and therefore comply with this policy as well. In addition, we have withdrawn our modification of height limits request, and redesigned our building to qualify as a 3-story building, which is now proposed to be approximately 69 feet in height. Page 7 Cherry Street. The inset parking area will need to be used EXCLUSIVELY for pick-up/drop-off & loading/unloading operations and will need to be designated as such (no designated parking spaces will be allowed, even short term). Furthermore, Transportation Services is generally concerned if the project were to proceed without providing the inset parking as vehicles would otherwise be utilizing the bikelane and travel lane for parking/drop-off/pick-up maneuvers. The start of the transition on the east side to provide the inset parking shall occur in front of the property, not in front of the railroad property. This inset parking does not need to "bump -out" prior to the driveway leading to the parking garage, the inset area can continue into the driveway per the City's Traffic Engineer. Response: We met with Eric Bracke, Marc Virata, and Anne Aspen on April 26, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., in the Development Review Engineering conference room at 281 North College Ave, and worked out that we can provide a loading zone off the west side of our drive aisle with this scenario. Number: 66 Created: 3/25/2005 13/25/05] The comment was raised at staff review from Advance Planning suggesting moving the location of the street trees adjacent to the street. Should this design be utilized instead of the present proposal of putting the trees behind the existing attached sidewalk, Engineering may have additional concern and comments with regards to #22 as this change will result in the infiltration planter boxes being directly adjacent to the flowline of the street which raises pavement maintenance and degradation concerns that are minimized in the present design with the sidewalk separation. This comment applies whether street trees are adjacent to inset parking or bikelanes. Response. 'We intend to keep the tree wells in the location behind the existing sidewalk. We plan to have standard tree wells rather than the infiltration concept within them Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: General Number: 15 Created: 3/7/2005 [3/7/05] The drawings show this addressed as 100 Cherry St., but the project comment sheet identifies it as 120 Cherry St. Response: We have taken off all reference to an address. Topic: Utilities Number: 10 Created: 3/7/2005 [3/7/05] If the developer chooses to jack/bore conduits across Cherry St., the bores will need to be one 4" and one 2" conduit, a minimum of 36" deep, and be inspected by Light & Power at the time of installation. Normally these facilities would be installed by the Utility at the developer's expense. It is acceptable for phone and/or CAN to be in the same trench/bore with electric. Resoonse Acknowledged Number: 11 Created: 3/7/2005 [3/7/05] Light & Power will need electrical load information. This includes a Commercial Electric Service Information (C-1) form for each commercial service, including one for any fire pump if required, and the electric service size for each residential unit. typically 150 amps or less, or 200 amps. Residential units must be individually metered. Response: Acknowledged. We will have our mechanical engineer contact Light and Power to determine electrical load information. Number: 12 Created: 3/7/2005 [3/7/05] The parking garage drawing shows an elevator. Although the response from Conceptual Review comments states that 3-phase power will not be required, virtually all elevators do require 3 phase power. Also, the parking platform lifts may require 3-phase power. Additional costs to the developer will be incurred to bring 3-phase from appx. 300 ft. south of Cherry St. Page 6 2:30 p.m., in the Development Review Engineering conference room at 281 North College Ave., and worked out that we can provide a loading zone off the west side of our drive aisle with this scenario. Number: 42 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] While a soils report was not submitted and not required through Engineering, it seems odd that one isn't being done at this time given the high groundwater in the area (the Block 33 soils report indicated finding groundwater in various locations at depths as high as 6.5 feet below the existing surface) and the use of a below grade parking structure and infiltration planter boxes in the right-of- way. Also, with the site being next to two railroad lines, wouldn't there be a benefit in conducting a soils investigation now if there may be some underground contamination? The construction of the parking garage and any potential associated dewatering will need to designed in such a way that groundwater is not discharged onto public right-of-way. Any attempts to dewater the site should be verified that the groundwater is not contaminated or that another party has groundwater rights. Response: We have provided a soils report with this submittal Number: 58 Created: 3/22/2005 [3/22/051 Please remove any indication of a street number for the project on the drawings. The project will be assigned a Cherry Street address upon completion of the final plan. All drawings should only be titled "Cherry Street Station". Response We have revised the drawings to accommodate this comment Number: 59 Created: 3/23/2005 [3/23/05] Referring back to #41, with the lack of parking being provided for the commercial uses (which meets code), Transportation Services would like to receive written confirmation from the Developer that the proposed design lacking commercial parking is the Developer's decision and that the Developer acknowledges that the City shall be under no obligation to provide parking for the development at any point in the future. Response. We have revised our submittal to clarify that the non-residential component of the project will only be an internet service provider. This use would only have one employee for an hour or so a week to maintain the equipment. One of the parking spaces will be available to the non-residential employee. Number: 60 Created: 3/23/2005 13/23/051 Per the City's Traffic Engineer, the entrance design shall include construction of a porkchop/channelization median to direct access as right-in/right-out to the extent possible. Response: We met with Eric Bracke, Marc Virata and Anne Aspen at 2:30 p.m. on April 26, 2005, in the Development Review Engineering conference room at 281 North College Ave. At this meeting we discussed that we will be required to design the pork chop, not build it with the project, but escrow the money to build it, in the event it becomes warranted. The submittal reflects this solution. Number: 61 Created: 3/23/2005 [3/23/051 Please ensure the site and construction plans show properties and access points across Cherry Street. The driveway for Taco John's is not evident on the construction plans. Response: The access drive to Taco John's has been added to the plans. Number: 65 Created: 3/25/2005 [3/25/051 Representatives of Transportation Services discussed the Cherry Street design and it was fully agreed (including Traffic Engineering) to allow inset parallel parking (not diagonal parking) along Page 5 Response: We met with Basil Hamdan and Kevin McBride on December 14, 2004, at 700 Wood Street, to discuss detention and water quality issues. Then, at 9:30 a.m. on January 27, 2005, at 700 Wood Street, we (Interwest and MTA) met with Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy, Len (not sure last name) from Qwest, Monica Moore from Light and Power. to discuss dry utility coordination. We then met with Stormwater staff on 10:30 a.m., at 700 Wood Street, to discuss stormwater issues. Number: 39 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] The plans (site plan, construction plan, landscape plan, and drainage exhibit in the drainage report) do not indicate what is to occur in the right-of-way west of the proposed driveway entrance to the parking garage. Is this to be left in the current condition? Why not provide turf and street trees? Response: We propose to utilize the existing sidewaik west of our driveway. We propose to put dryland grasses between the sidewalk and our loading zone. We propose shrubs along the south edge of the loading zone. Number: 40 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] Given that there is no parking allowed along Cherry Street, I question how a modification to reduce the number of residential parking spaces can be supported. The Policy Statement CCD-1.19. cited in the modification request notes that in reducing parking standards, "on -street parking should be maximized", which can't be provided here given the configuration of Cherry Street. In my view, this citation weakens the argument to support the modification as no on -street parking exists for quite a distance from the property. Given the limited parking for the residents and guests (even if the modification were denied), the follow note should be added to the site plan and plat: Parking Note: Initial buyers of the development will be notified that they are buying into a configuration with limited (or no) guest and overflow parking, that households with more than two cars will have very limited on - site parking, and that the City accepts no responsibility to solve the parking problem at any point in the future. Response: We have withdrawn our parking modification request. We have added the Parking Note to the site plan notes. The property was already platted with the original town plat. We are not proposing to replat, therefore there's not a new plat on which to put this note. Number: 41 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] While the LUC has a maximum parking requirement for commercial, it seems appropriate to question where drop off and pick-up of patrons and/or employees, as well as load and unload items for delivery. 100% in total transit, bike, & pedestrian with 0% vehicular appears unrealistic. As an example, will the child and dog care uses specified for this building expect to see patrons drop off their child and/or dog via bike, transit, or walking and not by way of vehicle? How will postal delivery service function? Where will a pizza delivery vehicle/UPS park? It seems appropriate to look into providing additional inset widening for drop-off, another possibility is to provide satellite parking (Taco John's parking lot?) If the manner in which drop offs and deliveries are handled is by stopping on Cherry Street, this is of concern considering it blocks a through lane of traffic. If the driveway/ramp down to the parking garage becomes the default, having vehicles back-up onto Cherry Street against the flow of traffic is also problematic. Response: We have backed off most non-residential uses, however we have one that remains. A fiber optic trunk line runs along our side of Cherry, so we have specified that the only non-residential use is an internet service provider. We have talked to an end user who is very interested. They will only have one employee at the site for an hour or two a couple times a week. There offices will be elsewhere. They will really just have computer and internet equipment at the site, and a desk to maintain the equipment. We met with Eric Bracke, Marc Virata. and Anne Aspen on April 26. 2005 at Page 4 +PSCO will need a city of Fort Collins permit to open up College and tap main and pothole Cherry St. to enable PSCO to directional bore across Cherry St. Response: Acknowledged Department: Engineering Topic: Building Elevations Number: 37 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] Sheet 6 of 8 showing the east elevation does not indicate the proposed stairwell entrance on the south side of the building. Response: We have revised the elevation to show this stairwell entrance. Topic: General Number: 20 Created: 3/17/2005 [3/17/05] The site plan (Sheet 2 of 8) and construction plan set do not coordinate with regards to the pedestrian space in front of the building along Cherry Street. The site plan shows hatching that implies east of the new driveway, existing sidewalk is to be removed and replaced with a larger decorative sidewalk hatching up to the building. The construction plan set shows the existing concrete sidewalk remaining with a decorative type of brick walk behind the existing sidewalk. Please clarify the intent of the new and proposed pedestrian area and if new additional sidewalk is proposed within right-of-way that is not standard concrete, who will be maintaining this (DDA?) Response: We have revised the site plan and the construction plan set to be coordinated on this issue. The sidewalk will be standard concrete that well be saw -cut between the building and the existing sidewalk. The existing sidewalk is to remain as -is. Number: 21 Created: 3/17/2005 [3/17/051 The portion of the stairwell component along Cherry that extends into right-of-way is of issue. These permanent structures are not allowed in public right-of-way and should be shifted to the north to place everything (including footers for the retaining wall) outside of right-of-way. Response: We nave revised the stairwell to be entirely outside the Cherry Street right-of-way. Number: 22 Created: 3/17/2005 [3/17/051 The infiltration planter boxes being located in right-of-way are problematic. The City Engineer is willing to allow this but there are some general concerns. The 1-foot drop in height from the surrounding grade to the planting area (as specified on the detail sheet 7 of 7 for the construction plan set) is a safety concern being located within a pedestrian plaza and adjacent to the existing walk. Tree grates should be provided to eliminate the issue of the grade change. If the "proposed plantings" shown in the detail is intended in addition to the street tree, I'm not sure if plantings can be selected that would grow through the tree grates? In lieu of tree grates, we may consider design alternatives of a barrier curb with notches to allow drainage to pass through, but the use of tree grates to prevent the 1 foot drop is preferred. Also, please ensure that the depth of the cut-off wall(s) for the planter boxes is at minimum three feet deep to reduce potential issues of the drainage affecting the pavement subsurface. Response: We have decided not to proceed with the infiltration component of the planter boxes. The tree wells will be standard tree wells. Tree grates are now proposed for our tree wells. Number: 38 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] A utility coordination meeting might be beneficial to discuss utility servicing on site as well as getting utilities to the site considering railroad lines surround the property on two sides. Pale 3 We have revised our submittal to clarify that the non-residential component of the project will only be an internet service provider. This use would only have one employee for an hour or so a week to maintain the equipment. One of the parking spaces will be available to the non-residential employee. Number: 28 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] There are no bike facilities shown on the site plan. The developer is required by LUC 3.2.2.C(4) to provide for bike facilities for at least 5% of the number of parking spaces. Additional requirements are laid out in the following three sections. Response: We have provided a bike rack as part of this submittal as requested Number: 29 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] No photometrics were submitted with this project. A lighting plan with photometrics will be required in accordance with LUC 3.2.4(B) and C. Design standards follow in Section (D). Response: We have provided a photometric lighting plan as part of this submittal as requested. Number: 34 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] There is not sufficient information to determine safety of pedestrians where the streetscape intersects with the drive ramp into the parking garage. Please add information on where the ramp starts to the site plan and indicate clearly what happens on the edges of the ramp. Is it a curb? Is it a low wall? The issue of pedestrian safety is addressed in Sections 3.2.2.C.(2), 3.2.2.C.(5)(b), 3.2.2(D)(1) and 3.2.2.(E)(5). Response: Additional information to determine safety of pedestrians where the drive ramp crosses the sidewalk has been provided as requested. Number: 36 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/051 Please refer to redlines for additional comments. Please return redlines when you resubmit. [3/25/05] Please provide floor plans with your resubmittal to verify compliance with the standards pertaining to mezzanines. Troy was going to get me a copy of the correspondence that outlined those issues but I have not received anything yet. Response: We have referred to the redlines. We have provided floor plans to clarify the issues pertaining to mezzanines with this submittal. Topic: Zoning Number: 17 Created: 3/16/2005 [3/16/05] The following reviewers indicate that they have no problems or concerns with this project: Park Planning, Streets and Water Conservation. Response: Acknowledged Number: 18 Created: 3/16/2005 [3/16/05] Building inspection forwarded me comments which I will include in your redline packet. Response: Acknowledged Number: 19 Created: 3/16/2005 [3/16/05] Xcel Energy comments that: + PSCO has an existing 1 1/4" PE gas main that lays approximately 11' east of the west property line off College Ave. between Cherry and Maple St. new sidewalk and streets. Page 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS CURRENT PLANNING 281 NORTH COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 06/22/2005 ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen Topic: General Number: 27 Created: 3/18/2005 [3/18/05] There are interesting ideas in your parking scheme. The platform lifts are a great solution to some of your parking constraints. But taken together, all of the minimally standard and substandard aspects you propose in your parking lot do not meet the intent of the Land Use Code as spelled out in Section 3.2.2(A). The lot is not safe, efficient or convenient for the users. + About half of the stalls are dimensioned with the smallest measurements allowable as defined in long-term parking which is allowable for residential parking. Thirteen spaces are lift style, twelve spaces are triple tandem style, and four spaces are double tandem style. The parking requirement for the proposed 18 units, 16 of which are 2 bedroom and two of which are 1 bedroom is 31 spaces. + With 31 spaces total, 2 handicap spaces are required by 3.2.2 (K)(5)(d). Only one handicap accessible space is shown. + There is no provision for any guest parking. This is not a specific requirement of the Code. + As Zoning surmises elsewhere in this comment letter, with the high number of cars in tandem and the limited maneuvering space, and the likelihood that most residents will come and go according to a regular work schedule, there is not sufficient room for safe, convenient and efficient access to parking in this configuration with this many units. Also, since all of the units are declared to be 1 or 2 bedroom, the triple tandem spots are problematic in that no one neighbor would control all three spots, so one neighbor would have to call another neighbor (or two) to jockey cars in the morning. The applicant has stated that the triple spaces would not be split up among neighbors. If this is the case, these extra spaces should not be counted, even if the modification were approved, towards the required number of spaces. + There is a lack of sufficient backing space for spaces 5-18. It is likely in this scheme that the spaces would be full since so few are provided and that backing for the 13 spaces numbered 5-18 would occur in the handicap loading area which also serves as the only pedestrian access from the parking to the units, which is clearly not safe, efficient or convenient. + Though the plans are unclear as to exactly how many units are to be provided and whether there will be commercial space, there are no commercial or retail parking spaces offered or space for employees. Several of the intended commercial uses listed on the cover page would functionally need a drop-off or loading zone which is not provided on site. Because the proposed parking scheme as described in the submittal impairs the intent of the Land Use Code in that it is not safe, efficient or convenient, Staff will not support the modification. Response: In the previous round of review, we had requested a modification to the parking standards. We are no longer requesting this modification and have redesigned the parking configuration to satisfy the quantities required in the code for 15 two -bedroom units. We propose 28 parking spaces. only 27 are required. We have revised the parking layout to now provide for space for backing manuvers. Page 1